Prateek Arya Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Prateek Arya Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent (Asst. City Planner) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2025, inspect premises No.5-4-572 and 573, Old Katal Mandi, and, if the petitioner's allegations are found correct, take action against the 5th respondent strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, after putting the petitioner and the 5th respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing, within four (04) weeks of receipt of the order; notice to the 5th respondent dispensed with; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents' inaction in not removing the illegal constructions made by respondent No. 5 over premises No.5-4-572 and 573, Old Katal Mandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, warranted issuance of a writ of mandamus directing consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2025 and remedial action.

Court's answer

In the light of the Standing Counsel's submission that the 4th respondent would consider the representation, inspect the site and take action if the petitioner's allegations were found correct, notice to the 5th respondent was dispensed with.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the representation dated 04.02.2025, inspect the site, and if the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be correct, take action against the 5th respondent strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

Key takeaways

Any such action is to be taken by putting the petitioner and the 5th respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing.ratio¶38
The 4th respondent shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 4290 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Special Original Jurisdiction), decided 14.02.2025 by K. Lakshman J. — Petitioner Prateek Arya, resident of Old Katal Mandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, alleged that his neighbour, the 5th respondent (Kalyani Sainath), was carrying out construction without maintaining setbacks at H.No.5-4-572 and 573, i.e., unauthorized construction, and that despite his representation dated 04.02.2025 to the Assistant City Planner (4th respondent), which was received and acknowledged, no action was taken. Seeking a writ of mandamus citing Articles 14, 21 and 300-A, the petitioner challenged the officials' inaction in not removing the alleged illegal constructions. On the Standing Counsel for respondents 2–4 submitting that the 4th respondent would consider the representation, inspect the site and act if the allegations were found correct, the Court dispensed with notice to the 5th respondent and DISPOSED OF the petition, directing the 4th respondent to consider the representation dated 04.02.2025, inspect the site, and if the petitioner's allegations are found correct, take action against the 5th respondent strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by putting the petitioner and the 5th respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing, completing the exercise within four (04) weeks of receipt of the order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs.

[^316E ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 4290 OF 2025

Between:

Prateek Arya, S/o.Late V.B,Anand, Ased 25 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.5-4-579, Old Katal Man di, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad,Telangana State - 500 001.

,..PETITIONER

Atto

State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, I/unicipal Administration Department Hyderabad.

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporatron, represented by its Commissioner, GHIVC Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

The Deputy Commissioner, GHIVC Abids, Circle, Khairtabad G.H.l,,'1.C., Hyderabad.

4 The Asst. City Planner, Abids, Circle-Xlv, G.H.M.C., Saidabad, Hyderabad. Kalyani Sainath, S/o not known to Caveator, Aged lvlajor, Occ. Not known to Caveator, Fl/o Hno.5-4-572 and 573, Old Katal lt/andi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State^- 500 001.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the officials respondents in not removing the illegal constructions made by the respondent No. 5 over the premises No.5-4-572 and 573, Old Katal tt/andi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution and consequently direct the respondents herein to take immediate action for dismantling the illegal constructions over the^{premises No. premises} No.5-4-572 and 573, Old Katal Mandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.02.2025 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law forthwith, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMED SANAULLAH FARHAN

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Qounsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.5:--

The Court made the following: ORDER

i

I I I i i

\ ,i

I I

THE HONOURABLE^{SRJ JI,STICEK. LAKSHMAN} II/RIT PETITION NO. 4290 0F²⁰²⁵

ORDER:

Heard Sri Mohammed^{Sanaullah Farhan, learned} counsel for the^{petitioner and Sri MiddeArun Kumar, learned} Standing Counsel^{appearing for respondent Nos'2 to 4'}

Petitioner is resident^{of OId Katal Mandi,Nampally} Station Road, Hyderabad.^{Accordingto him, 5th respondent is} his neighbour and he is^{making construction inhouse} bearing H.No.5-4-572^{and 573 without maintainingsetbacks'} The same is unauthorized^{construction. Therefore, he has} submitted a representation^{dated 04 .02.2025 to the 4th} respondent with a^{request totake actionagainststh} respondent. Despite receiving^{and acknowledgingthe said} representation, 4ff respondent^{did not act upon the same'} Aggrieved by the said^{inactionof 4th respondent, petitioner} filed the present writ Petition.

Whereas Sri Midde Arun^{Kumar, learned Standing} Counsel appearing^{for respondentNos.2 to 4, on instructions,} would submit that 4th^{respondentwill consider the said} representation, inspect^{the site and if the allegations madeby}

I

2

&

the petitioner are found to be correct, he will take action against Sth respondent strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

In the light of the said submission, notice to Sth respondent is dispensed with.

This Writ Petition is disposed of directing 4tr, respondent to consider the representation dated 04 .O2.2025 and inspect the site and if the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be correct, he will take action against Sth respondent strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and by putting the petitioner and Sth respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. He sha_ll complete the said exercise within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SDI. A.^{SRINIVASA REDDY} T REGISTRAR ASSr$ //TRUE^COPY// TION^OFFICER 'Jt

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary to Government' Municipal Administration Department} 2 ifi "3'"I$"ffiit",h3'Ei!"i..:il[{):Municiparcorporation'GHMC

w

The Deputy Commissioner,^{GHMCAbids, Circle, Khairtabad G H M'C} ' Hvderabad.

+. ifr" Aiit. city^{Planner, Abids,Circle-Xv,} 9 [V-9''.Saidabad,^Hv-{"tgPi.d s. o"" cC io- Shr.^{rrrtonevrnrED SANAULLAH FARHAN,} A9yo.qAtg^IoPUCI 6. il; cc. to-op ron^{uurutctpAlADI\iIINISTRATIoN ANDURBAN} " D'iviloiMrNrr ,uign Court for the State bf Telang-qna, at Hvderabad [oU! z one cc to sRl.^{MIDbE ARUN KUMAR, Sc [oPUC]}

Two CD CoPies

I

BM GJP (A-

I ,

HIGH COURT

I \ oAteo i4to2t2o25

,

1 HE ST4; e'
(r'
a,' 2 3 APn 2025 (-
J
t t
01.- 1rO
1tr a

ORDER

WP.No.4290 of 2025

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( tr \t^q,